Publicly backed sports arenas are always a gamble. Sold as a way to attract investment and energy, they can become big public liabilities, draining money for more essential services.

The Nationals' new stadium has turned a dead urban zone into a hotspot. Photo: NRDC Switchboard

But that doesn’t stop too many cities, and there are examples of places that have gambled on sports facilities and won big.

There’s a new member of that club now: Washington, DC. It’s been nearly 10 years since the city green-lighted a package of 30-year bonds for a new home for the Nationals baseball franchise in a depressed southeastern section of the city. Kaid Benfield at the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard blog reports that the investment is paying off:

According to developers in the area, building didn’t really become financially feasible there until the city committed to the ballpark. Today, the neighborhood’s new projects are about 30 percent built. In addition to the new commercial properties, the area’s residential population has increased from about 1,000 to more than 3,500 and should eventually reach 16,000.

It is especially heartening that even those originally opposed to the stadium like what they see. Neighborhood resident Naomi Monk was a prominent skeptic, arguing that the park would only be an eyesore benefiting millionaire players and businessmen, with nothing in it for low-income residents. But in March she told Fisher that “I have to say, it’s been for the betterment of the community. Our crime seems to be under control. The neighborhood looks 100 percent better. The new housing is a great improvement.”

I’m not going to make a broader point about the extent to which public investment in sports is a good thing. It’s likely situational and, though it has been enormously beneficial here in Washington twice (though in the case of Verizon Center the city paid only for infrastructure), and it also appears to have been beneficial in nearby Baltimore, the facts and circumstances vary.

Benfield reports that the tax issued on big businesses to support the stadium is bringing in twice what was expected. Plus additional property taxes related to new investment have added $13 million to the city’s coffers. Nice, for a change, to see a city enjoying a windfall at this moment in history.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Bike Delaware shares a League of American Bicyclists’ report showing that one in four collisions between cyclists and cars involve cyclists being hit from behind. Bike Portland reports the city’s first open streets event of the season attracted an astounding 28,000 people. And Transit in Utah says sustainable transportation advocates need to do a better job developing sales pitches and buzz words.

T-minus 5 years until people complain that the area is gentrifying and pushing out the low-income residents.

Development and gentrification go hand-in-hand
Disinvestment and urban decay are the other side of the coin.

But no matter what, the poorest amongst us will always be the losers.

Clutch J

LAB indicates they are documenting only FATAL car-bike crashes. It’s long been believed that hit-from-the-rear crashes are comparatively infrequent but also more serious than other types of crashes.

http://www.gatewaystreets.org/ Herbie Markwort

Is DC an outlier where a new stadium actually spurs development? We’re still waiting in St. Louis for our fabled Ballpark Village.

http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/ Andy B from Jersey

The Predential Center in Newark is pretty good too. It’s close to NJ TRANSIT and PATH which significantly cut down on the need for parking. Still, I don’t think the arena spurred major development in the area, or a least I don’t think it was the impetus behind the increased developer interest in Newark but it sure didn’t hurt.

SteveS

I think what this article is doing is ignoring the risk inherent in these projects. If the risks and rewards of the project were worthwhile on their own merits, developers would be happy to build the stadium with their own money, as with AT&T Park and Dodger Stadium.

To then look at the parks built with taxpayer money and see that a few are successful and many are not does not necessarily mean that the successful ones were worth funding with government dollars. It means that even on projects too risky to be worth the investment, if you build enough of them you will end up with some lucky cases.

MCR

Baseball Stadiums bring 35-50k people into an area 81 times a year (almost 1/4 year), so the economic benefits can be substantial. Football stadiums, on the other hand, are a definite drain, as they are used only a handful of times a year…

Transit guy

While the baseball stadium did provide somewhat of a catalyst for the nearby residential and office building development, I think the ballpark area would have happened without it but at a slower pace. The biggest drawback of the area is the lack of any retail beyond a chain drugstore and several banks. Food retailers are growing out very slowly and a grocery store is under construction. Real restaurants are hurt by the BID’s encouragement of food trucks, a poor substitute. Several office buildings in the Navy Yard area remain largely vacant but they will eventually be rented. More people living and working here would help spur the retail as much or more than the baseball field. It is, however, a nice stadium and the amount of baseball parking was held way down.

CoolBeanz

This is what bothers me about most Atlantic Yards opponents. The Barclay Center will contribute to development and density in the right place: a transit rich downtown area. It will be a catalyst for an area that has underperformed for decades considering its accessibility, much like the National’s stadium has been for D.C.

Do opponents rather the stadium remain in a sprawling suburban area like Bergen County? What’s more important, preserving views, tranquil streets and cheap prices for the few nearby residents, or promoting a more lively and dense urban core for the benefit of the wider city community?

I can understand criticism that would make Atlantic Yards a better project, but what I mostly see is NIMBYism at its worst.

Dudeinho

Now all they need to do is get DC united a stadium across the street and it can becomea stadium district. to bad the poplar point proposal fell through it had a very similar development plan for Ward 8

Anonymous

Ironically the Nats stadium killed the DC United plans since so much gov’t backing was locked into the baseball stadium. Although the only thing DC United asked for was for the city to clean up of the site and improvement of infrastructure (which would have benefitted the entire community), the stadium itself would have been privately financed. As far as the Nats (a munch more profitable organization in a much more profitable league) almost the entire stadium and infrastructure was financed by the city. The Verizon Center was privately financed, brings in far more events than the Nats park and created much more economic growth.

I think the article fails to account for why MLB stadiums require so much more public money compared to the other leagues. It would be nice for the council of mayors to stand up to MLB and have them actually invest in stadiums so they can’t threaten to leave a city every time the lease runs out.

Anonymous

A city should never be in the business of building assets for private businesses.

A few major flaws.

1) When the lease runs out (or even mid-lease) the tenant has all the power and can renegotiate a deal that clearly benefits them or they will threaten to leave town (MLB has an incredibly good record of doing this, check Tampa Bay, Milwaukee and MInneapolis), leaving the city with an unused asset that they are stuck paying for.

2) When a city like DC, Milwaukee or Minneapolis agrees to build new assets for a private enterprise it signals that this is an acceptable business model and encourages cities to compete against each other to subsidize private enterprise. I have not seen any cost-benefit studies that look at the long term impact of increasing taxes on individuals or businesses to finance a stadium while at the same time slashing budgets for public transportation and schools. Does the increase in property tax offset the increased financial burden placed on the city and the decrease in other services?

Guest

What you are missing w/r/t Atlantic Yards, is that that development is happening anyhow – I doubt that anyone was waiting for a stadium to move in. The rebuilt Atlantic-Pacific station was probably 100x (conservatively) more important.

Follow Streetsblog

Transportation for America

America's transportation system is half a century behind--causing unnecessary pollution, expense, and congestion. We need our leaders to invest in public transportation, high-speed passenger rail, streets safe for biking and walking, maintaining our roads and transit systems, and green innovation.